

























/ 




Commissioners: 

John A. McIlhenny, 


Foi 

Ju 



President. 


Charles M. Galloway, 
IIer.mon \V. Craven 


UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIO 


♦ i 


Washington, D. C 


< ' 

INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OE 

INVESTIGATIONS. 


1. Object of investigations.—The object of all investigations by the com¬ 
mission is to ascertain all the facts relating to the matter under investigation. 
This should never be lost sight of by the investigator, and he should nev<^v 
permit himself to be influenced in the slightest degree by political ob religious 
bias or by any other motive than a desire to find and report the facts exactly as 
they are. If an investigator is not fair and impartial he is false to the com¬ 



mission, injurious to the public service, and unfitted 


him. He must remember that he is not in any sense a prosecuting attorney 
and must bend every energy to the ascertainment of all the pertinent evidence 
on both sides of every case investigated by him. 

2. Duty to give testimony.—Civil Service Rule XIV provides that— 

“ It shall be the duty of every officer and employee in the executive civil service, 
and of every applicant or eligible for a position therein, to give to the comniis-' 
sion, or its authorized representatives, all proper and competent information 
and testimony in regard to matters inquired of arising under the civil-service 
act and rules, and to subscribe such testimony and make oath or affirmation to 
the same before some officer authorized by law to administer oaths.” 

The attention of any person in the executive civil service of the Government 
who shows a reluctance to testify should be called to the requirement of this 
rule, and his refusal to testify should be immediately reported to the com¬ 
mission. 1 

While absent from his duties for the purpose of testifying before a representa¬ 
tive of the commission such employee is entitled to his regular compensation. 2 

1 It is within the power of the President so to modify the civil-service rules as to 
impose upon all officers and employees in the public service the duty of giving to the 
commission or its authorized representatives all proper and competent information in 
regard to matters inquired of and to subscribe to and make oath to such testimony before 
some officer authorized by law to administer oaths. The imposition of such a duty upon 
every officer and employee in the public service is neither unreasonable nor unsuitable 
It is clearly within the exercise of the executive power, and its legality can nor 
doubted. (Opinion Atty. Gen., Dec. 2, 1901, 23 Op., 595.) 

2 A per diem employee of the Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa., absent from duty 
three and one-fourth hours under a summons, in giving testimony concerning alleged vio¬ 
lations of the civil-service regulations, was denied payment for the time he was away 
from his regular work, because the duty performed in giving testimony was considered 
by the Ordnance Department as having no relation to his service as an employee therein. 
The Comptroller of the Treasury held, however, that he “ should be treated as in a duty 
status and as in the performance of duty under his employment in going, returning, and 
attending on the commission, and should be paid the pay due him for such time from the 
appropriation for the Ordnance Service governing his employment.” (Decision, Comp, 
Treas., Aug. 17, 1911. See also 17 Comp. Dec., 584 ; 5 Comp. Dec., 797 ; 9 Comp. Dec., 


27G.) 



78000°— 17 


v 





2 



v 6 . i'^thoritr +o admnister oaths.—A person authorized by the Civil Service 
Commi&0o» to administer oaths in making an investigation has full authority 
under the law to do so. 

4. Course of investigation.—The usual and natural course is for the investi¬ 
gator to obtain first the facts sustaining the charges, and after that the facts 
refuting the charges ; but this procedure will in some cases be somewhat varied, 
depending .ion circumstances. Usually the accused will request the investi¬ 
gator to interview certain persons in his behalf; but, with or without a request 
from 5into . ccused, the investigator should interview those from whom he has 
reason to believe he can get facts favorable to the accused, just as he inter¬ 
views those from whom he has reason to believe he can get facts unfavorable 
to the accused. Sometimes it is necessary to interview a witness more than 
once. As a rule witnesses should not be examined in the presence of others. 1 
The investigator should continue the investigation until he is satisfied that he 
has arrived at the truth or has practically exhausted the means of arriving 
at the truth. He should give a statement of the charges to the accused and 
procure? definite and detailed statement from him in answer. 

5. Communicating charges to the accused.—In all ordinary cases the accused 
should be fully informed, in writing or orally, of the charges against him, 
with reasonable particularity as to time, place, or other circumstances con¬ 
nected with the offenses charged, and he should be given ample opportunity to 
refute the charges. 2 Accused employees sometimes demand a copy of the charges, 
claiming or believing that they are entitled to such a copy in view of the pro¬ 
visions of section 6 of the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), relating to the 
procedure in removals. When the investigator does not deem it necessary to 
furnish such a copy the employee demanding it should be informed that the 
accusations or complaints which are being investigated do not constitute 
“ charges ” within the meaning of this statute, nor is the investigation a re¬ 
moval proceeding, but that it is merely an inquiry for the purpose of deter- 
mining whether or not there is a basis for preferring charges and instituting 
proceedings for removal or other discipline. 



it is usually best not to inform the accused of the charges, or to do anything 
that will put the accused in a position to embarrass criminal proceedings, by 
tampering with witnesses or in any other manner. In this matter the investi¬ 
gator should be guided by his best judgment. There may be extreme cases 
where it may even be desirable that the accused be kept in ignorance of the fact 
that an investigation is being made. 

6. Hearsay evidence.—When a witness tells what some one else told him, his 
testimony, which is usually called “ hearsay evidence,” is ordinarily regarded 
• as of slight value, and as a general rule is inadmissible in courts of law. It is 
therefore desirable whenever possible to get the direct evidence of witnesses who 
,i testify as to facts within their own personal knowledge. Hearsay evidence is 
iten of value to the investigator in pointing out a source of direct evidence, 
for he can go to the person who is reported to have made certain statements 
and ascertain directly from him what lie knows about the matter under inves¬ 
tigation. Again, it is sometimes desired to ascertain what a person’s general 
reputation is in the community in which he lives; for example, his reputation 
for truth and veracity: A person’s general reputation in the community for 
truth and veracity is what the people of the community generally think of him 
in this regard,, as indicated by what they say. In such cases, of course, it is 
proper to permit a witness to testify as to what is generally said by the people 




1 See section 10. 


2 See section 9. 


D«, bt D. 


APR 24 191/ 







of the community in regard to the disposition of the person jo tell the truth. 
But usually specific facts, not reputation or opinion, are desired by the com¬ 
mission; for example, the opinion of a witness that a Government employee 
has violated the political activity rule is of little value except as it is backed 
up by a statement of specific acts constituting such violation. 

7. Motive of the complainants.—Accused employees sometimes question the 
motives of those making the charges, claiming that they are prompted, not by a 
desire to promote the public good, but bv personal animosity, partisan bias, or 
other improper considerations. These should be informed by tbfe investigate- 
that the object of the investigation is to ascertain the truth, whatever \i may be, 
and that the motives of those making the charges and the motives of all persons 
examined, so far as their motives are known, will be carefully considered in 
determining the degree of credence to be given to the statements they make. 

If the person making the charges is in the Government service or is an appli¬ 
cant for admission thereto, and the investigation proves that the charges are 
false, the investigator should cover this feature of the case thoroughly in order 
that appropriate action may be taken with respect to the person prefe ring sJbli 
false charges. 

8. Representation by attorney.—Attorneys for the complainant or the accused 
employee are not permitted to be present during or to participate in any inves¬ 
tigation conducted by representatives of the commission. 1 

9. Local friction and discord to be avoided.—The investigator should not re¬ 
veal the identity of the person furnishing the information upon which the 
investigation is based, nor the identity of any witness, nor should he heed any 
request of the accused to be confronted by those who have furnished informa¬ 
tion against him. Often the accused knows, or thinks he knows, who are 
furnishing information against him and the nature of the information. It is 
not desirable either to increase or verify his knowledge as to these matters. 
In performing his work the investigator should occasion as little discord and 
friction in the community as possible. In no way can the investigator dis¬ 
play more tact and judgment and good common sense than in the manner in 
which he eliminates personalities while securing the facts. 

10. Examination of witnesses.—As to form, the testimony of witnesses, 
named in the order of desirability, is as follows: 

1. Written testimony subscribed and sworn to by the witness, unless the 
witness is orally examined under oath and the testimony is taken steno- 
graphically. 

1 It has not been the practice of the commission in its investigations to permit uninter¬ 
ested parties'to be present. There is no need for employees or their accusers to he repre¬ 
sented by attorney, as it is not a prosecution but simply an effort impartially to ascer¬ 
tain the facts, and the representatives of the department and the commission will afford 
the parties all necessary protection. An investigation of this sort is not conducted in the 
same manner as a trial in a court of justice, and there is no adherence in such an investi¬ 
gation to rules of procedure or rules of law with which a layman is not familiar t-.nd 
because of which in a formal hearing or in a court of justice it is desirable that he have 
the aid of an attorney. The whole object of such an investigation is to ascertain the 
facts for the commission, and the investigators will accept testimony and evidence from 
any credible source ; they are in no sense conducting a trial, but they are gathering evi¬ 
dence upon which the commission may form judgment. The argument of counsel before 
them and the participation of counsel in their work can have but little, if any, effect upon 
the outcome of the case, because it will be Anally decided by the commission and the de¬ 
partment concerned, and not by the investigators. After the investigation has been com¬ 
pleted and the report of the investigators has been submitted to the commission, the 
parties may, if desired, be heard in person This is the usual practice in administrative 
investigations, and the statute governing removals from the classiAed service, recognizing 
this, provides that no trial or hearing shall be required except in the discretion of the 
removing oAicer. 



2. Written stfu emends signed by the witness. 

3. (Aral statements made to the investigator. 

If it is practicable to obtain only the oral statement of a witness, the 
investigator in reporting to the commission should be very careful on every 
account to set forth accurately what the witness said to him. The investi¬ 
gator has a special interest in getting the testimony of witnesses in writing. 
Occasions have arisen where an investigator relied upon the oral statement 
of a witness as a basis for an assertion in his report, to be confronted later 
v,/fh written statement from the. same witness wholly contradictory in its 
nature. The embarrassment attending such an occurrence would be avoided 
by obtaining written statements from all witnesses,' subscribed and sworn to 
whenever practicable. Documentary evidence, such as letters, should be se¬ 
cured whenever they are material and can be obtained. The testimony of all 
Government employees should be under oath. In all important cases, espe¬ 
cially those which may result in criminal prosecution, any statement of the 
aq‘’' ’sed, whether made orally or in writing, under oath or otherwise, should 
be 'vAitnessed by some reliable third person. 

11. Assurances of secrecy.—Sometimes, though rarely, it is necessary in order 
to secure desired testimony to specially assure the witness that what he says 
will be treated by the commission as strictly confidential; that the testimony 
he gives will not be known in the community unless he himself gives it pub¬ 
licity ; and that his evidence will be solely for the files of the commission. Such 
special assurances should be noted by the investigator in his report to the com¬ 
mission. Usually the only assurance that will be necessary is that while the 
nature /if a person’s testimony may be disclosed, the identity of the person giving 
it will not be. 

No promise of concealment of testimony should be made to those in the execu¬ 
tive -civil service who are required to testify by the rule cited. If they fear 
that an attempt will be made to punish them for testifying, either by the accused 
or by a superior officer, they may be told that if they testify fully and frankly 
the commission will make every effort to shield them and protect them from 
any discrimination which a superior officer may attempt to exercise because of 
the giving of such testimony; also that all testimony obtained in an administra- 
tiveybivestigation is regarded as confidential and will not be disclosed unless it 
is deemed necessary to do so. If there appears among the employees in an office 
a general reluctance to testify because of fear of the result the investigator 
should request the head of the office to announce to his subordinates that they 
may testify freely without being discriminated against because of such testi¬ 
mony. 

12. Joint investigations.—When a representative of the commission cooper¬ 
ates in an investigation with a representative of a department where some of 
the charges are under the jurisdiction of the commission and some are exclu¬ 
sively under the jurisdiction of the department the representative of the com¬ 
mission may actively participate in the entire investigation, but he shall make 
no recommendation except as to such charges as are under the jurisdiction of 
the commission. 

Investigators of the commission should not sign written charges which are 
served upon a person under joint investigation. The representative of the com¬ 
mission should consult his own judgment and form his opinion independently, 
giving such weight to the opinion of the departmental investigator and his rea¬ 
sons therefor as may commend themselves to the unbiased judgment of the com¬ 
mission’s representative. 

1&. Reports of investigators.—Reports should be in duplicate, and, if con¬ 
venient, the accompanying testimony also. The report should contain a clear 


and concise statement of the charges, the answer of the accused, and the evi¬ 
dence obtained, ai ranged, so far as possible, in the order of the charges, and 
the specific points thereof. The report should end with the conclusions of the 
investigator and his recommendation as to the action to be taken, although the 
commission recognizes the fact that in many cases in‘the matter of making 
recommendations the investigator to ay labor under the disadvantage of not 
knowing what action is usually taken i n similar cases. 

It is not the policy of the Post Office- ^ rtment to suspend clerks and car¬ 
riers in post offices for offenses involving^ of the political activity rule. 

Reduction in grade is the usual penalty in oases, and it is requested that 
recommendations for the discipline of clerks and carrio rs p os t office Serv¬ 

ice be made on that basis. 

So far as he can, the investigator should report his impi 9gS i on an( | opinion 
of the reliability, character, and honesty of the various witnes*.^ Especially 
should he do so when there is a direct conflict of testimony as f- 0 some i m _ 
portant matter, for in such cases the kind of witnesses rather than their num¬ 
ber is the consideration of prime importance. 

14. Personal judgment and tact of investigators.—Investigators differ videly. 
For instance, some may excel in reading character and in judging the reliability 
of witnesses; others may excel in drawing the correct inferences from equivocal 
circumstances. No two cases are alike. Therefore only general directions can 
be given to investigators, and they must to a large extent rely upon their own 
individual judgment, tact, and prudence to guide them in the varying details of 
the different cases assigned them. 

15. Expense accounts of local secretaries.—Local secretaries who are in¬ 
structed to make investigations involving expenditure for travel will, as soon 
as practicable after the conclusion of the investigation, transmit their expense 
accounts to the commission on the form provided. The account must be accom¬ 
panied by a copy of the letter authorizing the investigation. 





WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1917 










































* I 


























































' 




















